[wplug] Compiler questions

Dave Neuer mr_fred_smoothie at yahoo.com
Wed Feb 2 15:30:48 EST 2005


--- redtoade <redtoade at gmail.com> wrote:

> > 3) Aside from compiler optimizations, most
> software has a number of
> >   compile-time options you can tweak (not all
> related to performance)
> >   For example, I just recompiled Sylpheed with
> GnuPG support.
> 
> Let me ask the dumb question then:
> if in /etc/make.conf I have the line "USE=-X" (plus
> others) because my
> machine does not run X, then when I "emerge emacs"
> don't I get an
> emacs install that does not include that annoying X
> based GNU emacs
> (not to be confused with xemacs)?  Otherwise, if I
> "USE=X", I
> typically get a few more dependencies and a somewhat
> larger binary?
> 
> That was always my problem with RedHat rpms.  They
> would package
> binaries that I didn't want and that weren't really
> dependencies.
<snip>
> I mean when I'm on a
> gnome only system,
> the end product of "USE = -kde" is smaller binaries,
> with fewer
> dependencies.  Which is better than the one binary
> fits all method. 
> Plus it is all done within the bounds of an
> effective package
> management system, so it's easy to install/uninstall
> on the fly.  Am I
> misunderstanding how this works?

Your understanding is correct. This is an excellent
example of the type of thing source-distros provide.
Now, if you're not a control freak, harddrives are
large and RAM is cheap; it may not matter.

I personally run 3 pieces of binary software
(excluding the bios and various firmware bits,
obviously) on any of my systems: flash plugin, java,
and (less and less) realplayer. On principle, I will
not run anything I can't fix myself, if I have
to/choose to. Not everyone wants this level of control
or optimization. As I said, if performance/control
don't matter, use one of any number of fine, binary
distros.

Dave


More information about the wplug mailing list